The STL containers/iterators are very useful too. Sure you can implement them yourself in C but having them built into C++ makes them far easier to work with and are more likely to be better optimized than what most people could come up with on their own.

Although I am no Master at C++, I have done some programming in the lanquage. Besides being widely used ( This is the reason I am making an honest effort to switch ), I do not think that OOP is strictly enforced ! ? If you do not want to Isolate routines so that you do not want keep re-writing the code over and over vs Cut and paste. (personally I find that to be much faster in setting up a knew program, especially if I Already solved that routine say 6 times already ) you really do not have to do OOP.
I have been using OOP from my Pascal days. But I have found that larger programs runn faster in C++.

C++ is a multi-paradigm language. It supports you if you want to do OOP. It supports you if you want to do imperative. It supports you if you want to do metaprogramming. It supports you if you want to do functional programming. It gets out of your way of you choose not to use those paradigms.

The biggest and best thing about C++ is it supports the RAII paradigm (which requires a certain amount of OOP). That alone makes C++ stand head and shoulders above C or Java and any other language with non-deterministic destruction. You can use RAII using only std::unique_ptr and lambdas if it's important that you avoid the appearance of using classic OOP.

std::string and std::vector. I cannot overestimate their importance in managing code. String gives you a lot of clean functions (eliminates the most of buffer overruns), has its operators overloaded (that means no more concat) and is not zero-terminated (you can store whatever you like there). (C++ streams are also good for these reasons excluding the last one.) Vector gives you an easily resizable array and it stores its size for you, so no more arraysize integers. Both of them most definitely ease the development process.

OOP is great, but not everything is an object. That is why I do not like languages thet shoehorn OOP to situations where it does not work. C++ does not force you, however – it lets you choose.

There is clearly no reason nowadays why would not someone want to use C++ (except in circumstances where the STL is nonexistent). I would recommend you to switch.

Thank you very much everyone. The info was very helpful. So many features I could find use for. It has been quite a while since I touched c++ at all. I will have to give the plunge a go as I think it would be excellent for my programming style. I can only help to remember what it is like to not have to manage tedious void* casting to get the right effect. I think std::function is my biggest turn on at the moment.

Object-Oriented programming hardly produces error-prone, mangled code. In fact, I would say (And this is someone who came from only procedural programming to C++ around two years ago) that object-oriented programming reduces errors, nevermind making your code far more understandable.

if (Object.size() < Object.MaximumSize)
{
Object.IncreaseSize;
}

This code makes sense, rather than having to use weird structs and arrays, or collections of values that require commenting to explain the correlation. I also recently wrote an article on The Auto Variable (A great new C++11 feature).

As a list, well, I'm not sure. Here are some (very useful) highlights:

The Auto Variable

Constexpr

Vectors

Objects, in General

auto pointers

weak pointers

etc.

There are just far too many great C++(11) features. C hasn't been updated since 1999, also, which means many C++ features that are commonplace in many programming languages now might never reach C (However I hope they make a new standard, it's definitely rejuvinate the language).

Object-Oriented programming hardly produces error-prone, mangled code. In fact, I would say (And this is someone who came from only procedural programming to C++ around two years ago) that object-oriented programming reduces errors, nevermind making your code far more understandable.

if (Object.size() < Object.MaximumSize)
{
Object.IncreaseSize;
}

This code makes sense, rather than having to use weird structs and arrays, or collections of values that require commenting to explain the correlation. I also recently wrote an article on The Auto Variable (A great new C++11 feature).

As a list, well, I'm not sure. Here are some (very useful) highlights:

The Auto Variable

Constexpr

Vectors

Objects, in General

auto pointers

weak pointers

etc.

There are just far too many great C++(11) features. C hasn't been updated since 1999, also, which means many C++ features that are commonplace in many programming languages now might never reach C (However I hope they make a new standard, it's definitely rejuvinate the language).

I am not saying OOP is error prone what I am saying is that OOP can lead to abstractions that go too deep which leads to harder to maintain code. You can find numerous threads here in the GDNet forums where people have a hard time finding certain bugs because their abstractions are far to complex for the problem they are trying to solve. The issue arrises because people tend to abuse inheritence. From a side node understandable is more of a personal preference. For instance I find it easier to understand and learn procedural libraries then heavily abstracted libraries. It is not that I have a problem with OOP I use it when it makes sense in Python all the time when writing scripts and such the issue with it have have is the over abstraction and abuse that comes from it.

Yes the C11 standard came out very close to the C++11 standard the issue with C at the moment is none of the compilers care to implement the newer C standards to this day the only full C99 compiler I know of is Pells and maybe Intel. GCC has some support and MSVC has terrible support.

It comes down to the fact for me that there are certain aspects of C++ in the new 11 standard that I really like and really wish were in C. In all honesty one feature that would make a world of difference in C is namespaces but they still don't exist in any compiler I have used.

Yes, OOP can lead to unnecessary abstractions in hands of an inexperienced programmer. Functional programming can lead to overcomplicated, not understandable and unclean code. None of these pitfalls is a reason not to use these paradigms, just a reason not to use libraries which abuse them.

Yes the C11 standard came out very close to the C++11 standard the issue with C at the moment is none of the compilers care to implement the newer C standards to this day the only full C99 compiler I know of is Pells and maybe Intel. GCC has some support and MSVC has terrible support.

Clang has the best support for both C11 and C++11 at the moment as far as I am aware. GCC is second place with C++11 support. MSVC has no support at all for any C dialect other than ANSI C and has poor C++11 support (comparatively speaking). Intel I have no idea about other than they have good support for C99. No idea about C11 or C++11.

I agree Clang has the best support with GCC as a close second right now I use GCC for my toolchain through MinGW due to better windows support than Clang which requires a bunch of muck around to get to work properly. If I was running Linux or a Mac I would use Clang in a heartbeat but even on Linux it would require custom building of all your libraries. Microsofts compiler is great but they are just too slow to implement standards.